Talk:Prince Dimitri of Lovia
Their knowledge of languages is getting better and better.. :P Alexandru 10:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC) :It is :-) that was what I meant to do with the kings, and it's logical evolution, isn't it? 15:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC) A happy birthday to HRH Dimitri I, King of Lovia from his humble servant Lars Washington. ::All the world's a stage, ::and all the men and women merely players: ::they have their exits and their entrances; ::and one man in his time plays many parts... ::::Shakespeare. Also the DoCHE presents its best wishes to HRH Dimitri I, King of Lovia expressing its gratitude towards HRH in offering an abundancy of sweet peas on this wonderful 13th day of April 2008. :Thank you very much! I'm flattered 07:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC) ::Je bent toch in 1991 geboren dus dan ben je 17 en niet 18 Pierlot McCrooke Halle 07:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC) :::Yes, indeed, I was wrong 07:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC) ::::From Hurbanova, Oceana and Slovakia: Blahoželám vám k narodeninám!, from Mäöres and Limburg: Perfisia aan Öcher zie! and from Sūm Plāttstrēākūm: mīnun bētstūn Wīnsçūn ān Ōxūm! --Oos Wes Ilava Thoes Bès 11:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC) :::::I don't understand much from it, but I hope it's something nice 11:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::Blahoželám vám k narodeninám = congratulations to you for your birthday, Perfisia aan Öcher zie = ehm.. well it's a difficult Limburgish sentence I can't even translate to Dutch :D, literally it's Proficiaat aan * zijde (*=a conjugation of öch -> your (polite)), mīnun bētstūn Wīnsçūn ān Ōxūm = my best wishes to You (polite) :D --Oos Wes Ilava Thoes Bès 11:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC) :::::::Thanks a lot 11:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC) :Happy birthday!--Marius Ştefan 11:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC) ::Thank you. 11:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC) :happy birthday Pierlot McCrooke Halle 11:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC) ~ ...he's unmarried. =O an unmarried king? And a girl friend, do you have one? =S Cléo 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :At this stage not. I am too busy at this moment. 16:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::And a "fictional girlfriend" =? 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::Maybe, once By the way: please sign with the four waves and add your name to the signature in the "my preferences" set-up. 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::I don't get it. =? Cléo 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Now it is okay. You just need to sign with both name and date, as you did now. 16:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Aaa, okay, you see, I've got a little problem. The ~ button is a bit...... broken =S 16:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::I see. 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::"I see", the King doing the Anfii! :P --Bucurestean 19:54, November 13, 2009 (UTC) The text isnt good that king is is in congrees should be remvoed beuase ochange of Stateform Pierlot McCrooke 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC) :If you look at the reference, you can see the explenation: the king is in congress becasue he was king, but he can do his term without being re-elected -- even now he isn't a king anymore. 18:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC) MOTC Dear Member of the Congress, Lately there has been quite some political activity. A lot of proposals can be already voted for in the Second Chamber or are in the making in the First one. Here is a list of things you should take a look at: * The renewed LANDFA Act * The Fourth Amendemend * The recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia * The recognition of the Lovian Dollar * The First State Report I hope to see your votes/comments soon, the Prime Minister 07:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC) De monarchie had nog bestaan als de Koning niet automatisch lid was van het congres Pierlot McCrooke 16:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC) @relation: je maakt 't ons wel spannend jong! :P --OuWTB 18:22, November 10, 2009 (UTC) :I read some newspaper which said something about me having no children. Lol. Wordt vervolgd 18:32, November 10, 2009 (UTC) ::Ehh... I'm innocent! (((A))) --OuWTB 18:34, November 10, 2009 (UTC) Marriage Perhaps the king has a nephew or a niece, a brother or a sister, or some relative (between the age of 18 to 50) who could marry one of the adult children of the "Baron of Donia" and his wife Dalia Muhammed? :) Dr. Magnus 10:50, November 13, 2009 (UTC) :Please now swelf-promotion 10:51, November 13, 2009 (UTC) Oh, come on man! The "baron" is an American with the typical American fascination for nobility, he is of noble decent far, far back in his family tree somewhere. I just think it would be fun, why would anyone have any objections? Just fun. Dr. Magnus 10:55, November 13, 2009 (UTC) Libertas Your Highness, have you seen? We should go to Montegu is Burning --Lars Washington 16:29, January 31, 2010 (UTC) :On Libertan: there are two Libertans (thanks to me :P). Regiolects (of which you probably master none) and the form of Dutch spoken in Libertas (which is Dutch). So you're probably right :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:37, April 8, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks . I thought so. 17:52, April 8, 2010 (UTC) Atheist Atheistic kings don't exist. call me Batzloff 10:26, January 18, 2011 (UTC) :I suppose you're right. Makes me pretty unique huh? 11:54, January 18, 2011 (UTC) ::Come on, everyone knows they exist. They just never tell it in public, like atheist US presidents. ^^ 11:57, January 18, 2011 (UTC) :::Shhtt, the GOP doesn't know yet 11:59, January 18, 2011 (UTC) Absence The King has been extremely unactive since February and has not furfilled his official duties. He basically retreated to the Royal Palace with his wife and has been living of the taxpayer's money ever since. Since he has not officially abdicated yet (and I doubt he will) perhaps it would be best to replace the King with a more active relative who is better fit in performing his duties. Having a King as a symbol of our nation is one thing, but if that symbol is completely absent, it's a completely different story. The Master's Voice 18:30, May 17, 2011 (UTC) :I don't think he has 'official duties' but you're right that his powers need to be severely pruned. Is it really necessary to depose him though? Could he not simply be a symbol without political power (at least not unless elected)? --Semyon 19:56, May 17, 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't abolish his role, but take away his automatic vote in congress for the time being. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:21, May 17, 2011 (UTC) Yes, maybe we should take away his member by right status. The king should have to stand/run for election, not get an automatic seat. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:47, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :NO! Guys, I just to be one of the fighters against this seat, but taking it away - even if his absent - is probably the worst you can do... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 05:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::I'm deeply republican, and I'm proud of my American government system even though it fails sometimes. We all people and we all created equal, and no one man should be provided a home that he dose not have to pay for just because of his blood. Nor should he get a seat in the most powerful position in Lovia becuase his blood, but I will never remove his position without me saying it to his face and I'm sure he would win by a landslide in a election for being the creator of Lovia. Nathaniel Scribner 05:55, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :The King has no function left besides proposing the government composition together with the PM. I proposed an amendment in the First Chamber which takes away this last piece of utility. Our monarchy has become ceremonial. We do not need a new King as his absence will not have any impact - save that seat in Congress. We could decide to keep it or drop it. I am in favor of dropping it and let Dimi keep the throne as ceremonial monarch. As I see it Semyon and Marcus you both share this vision? 09:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC) Sure, let's go for that idea. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:10, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :: @Scribner - Republican? What happened to the SDP? :: @Yuri - I'll support that. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:28, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::He changed some ideologies, and he is now LDP. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:08, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::A ceromonial King? Fine. A symbol of the nation? Agreed. But only if that symbol show's himself. We can't have the symbol of our nation, our King, hidden in his Palace 24\7 doing absolutely nothing. He must actively participate in society. In doing so he may unite the nation the way we are united on a major sports event or on a national or international holiday. I say this is ought to be the King's role. If he does not do anything, replace him with a more lively, prolific brother or nephew. Also I think we should expand the Line of Succession with (acknowledged) children born out of wedlock or from a morganic marriage or maybe even include some far-away cousin from the old country to prevent the rather small Royal Family to die out after this generation or the next (which is pretty likely given the Noble Family's lack of fertility). The Master's Voice 16:22, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :I know they only have two children. What bull, ghengis khan had like 10,000 children or something, and Ismail Ibn Sharif had 867 children. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:39, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::Well, they shouldn't get so carried away they populate an entire nation, lol. Still, I think the family should be (and easily could be) expanded. Do you agree with what I said above, Marcus? The Master's Voice 16:40, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :More or less Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:11, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::I am glad with that! And if you want this family to be truly modern & progressive as you people claim to be you would also allow children out of wedlock and their offspring to be included in the Line of Succession. After all, how is it wrong for two people to raise their children without being married to each other, given the fact that they love each other deerly and are faithful to one another? The Master's Voice 18:20, May 18, 2011 (UTC) True. But let's keep things active in the first chamber by proposing somthing there. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:23, May 18, 2011 (UTC) : Maybe a Ramsley may be considered? In fact my Great-grandfather's aunt was Princess Manon. (sorry I've been away these days, I had an unexpected mini-holiday in Uruguay)HORTON11 18:26, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :A Ramsley could be considered. But Arthur's sons are closer related and have already father quite a few children thus enabling to prevent extinction and live on. The Master's Voice 18:30, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::His should definately be considered. But sadly they renounced their claims. We could also consider some members of the Royal Family of Carrington Island. They have many connections to Lovia, and some members are Lovian too. HORTON11 18:42, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::Renounced their claims? No, not exactly. The articles read they just have no interest in taking the throne. That was in 2009\2010, though; their opinion could have since shifted? There is no reason to look abroad just yet. We can include the Carrington Royals aswell, though. Just to expand the line of Succession. The natural sons of the previous king would be higher up in that list, though. The Master's Voice 18:52, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :We need to keep it in the noble family, keep it natural. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:57, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::Say we add Arthur's sons. They are in the Royal Family. One has six kids, the other two. That adds ten members to the family. Dimitri stays King (or is succeeded by his brother or nephew) and the Family is rejuvenited with fresh blood. Sounds good? The Master's Voice 19:00, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::How would we rank then in the line of successon though? HORTON11 19:02, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::That's a difficulty. I'd say they rank before the others, as they are the direct offspring of a reigning monarch, unlike the others who are mere grandchildren and nephews of Kings and Queens. Then the oldest of the twin sons of Arthur would be Second in Line after Dimitri. The Master's Voice 19:04, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::It might cause an uproar though, but I would support this. HORTON11 19:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::It might. But I think it'll pass if we'd vote on it. This is just what the Royals need at this point. The Master's Voice 19:21, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I don't support this. It is not necessary, and the only illegitimate son with an article has an inactive creator (for several months). We really don't need "fresh blood" in the royal family, they aren't going to all die. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:51, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::Bt the royal family is unrealistically small. HORTON11 :::::::We'll just include him and his six children, aswell as his brother and his two children. That makes the family large and healthy once again, as we needed. The Master's Voice 20:55, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::There's no reason to make it "healthy." Six is enough, and the family is recovering already. Besides, doesn't this make it unrealistic that Dimitri got the throne? The illegitimate sons are part of the royal family, just not in the line of succession. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:58, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::He didn't "just get it". There was controversy right from the very beginning of his reign. He even abdicated before for a short period of time to return later. The Master's Voice 21:01, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :So then why should the illegitimate sons' lines become the heirs to the thrones now? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:03, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::Why not? Their parents never married because Queen Lucy would not allow it, does that mean they lost all claims to the throne for that reason alone? What is this, the Middle Ages? It's the 21st century now and they have every right to the throne. More then some far-away cousin or the great-grandchildren of an adopted great-uncle. The Master's Voice 21:06, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::Uhm, I thought Lucy was dead by that point? Anyway, I'd rather delete the illegitimate sons than make them the heirs. There is no one running them currently (there is technically but he is gone forever), and there actually is a runner of Alexander who is inactive but Dimitri could ask him to come back on when he returns (User:Wikalex actually is dimi's brother IRL). I also don't think Arthur and the Veronica person "loved each other dearly". —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:11, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::See Arthur I talk page. We do not make them the heirs, just include them in the Line of Succession thus making the family bigger. We make the King's younger brother his heir (his direct sibling) instead of his nephews and nieces. The Master's Voice 21:15, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::@TheMaster: you want an active King, yet want an entirely fictional character (as in: not linked to an account) on the throne? I find that rather puzzling, how is he going to be more active? 06:00, May 19, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Neither of them are active. I meant not to replace Dimitri, all I said was we should include all relatives in the Line of Succession. Marriage, after all, isn't all-important nowadays and Arthur's sons are closely related by blood. They will be included in the L.o.S., just behind Alexander who remains heir apparant. Nothing changes, the family just expands. That's my proposal. It ain't weird, revolutunary or wacky. Just common sense, to add fresh blood to an unrealistically small Royal family. The Master's Voice 16:18, May 19, 2011 (UTC) :::::::No, BastardRoyale made them and made them not part of the line of succession because he didn't want his character to be in the line of succession. Also, they aren't illegitimate because they were born out of wedlock. That's allowed. Arthur III didn't want them to be considered his sons, or something like that, so they were illegitimate. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:03, May 19, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::He did consider them his sons as he raised them and went to their weddings. He just seems to have preferred his nephew over them. Still, born out of wedlock or not, they could and they should be included in the L.o.S., behind Prince Alexander. The Master's Voice 17:58, May 19, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::Illegitimate or not, they do have royal blood, and must be considered. HORTON11 18:02, May 19, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::Then why are they illegitimate? Let's make them after all of the legitimate people, how about. I don't want to have 8 people in front of dimi's 2nd cousins, which are better (xD). Or we can delete Arthur's sons. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:03, May 19, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::These guys are direct descendants of a king, no other living royal is. HORTON11 18:06, May 19, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::TM: Say we make them legitimate and put them behind the King's second cousins. Agreed. That way the Line of Succession is expanded yet not changed, the family expanded and everyone's happy. Furthermore the chances of Philip and George ever ruling Lovia are greatly diminished, as it is not unlikely Dimitri fathers issue. This way the family is large enough not to face extinction in the near future. The Master's Voice 18:06, May 19, 2011 (UTC) :Yes. That would be fine. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:10, May 19, 2011 (UTC) ::Then let us do that. No big changes are made, the main line remains the same. Only of these sons would somehow return and ask to be higher up we would consider, but since they haven't asked for that yet, this is the best option. The Master's Voice 18:13, May 19, 2011 (UTC) :::This is fine. if Philip returned though there could be problems HORTON11 19:02, May 19, 2011 (UTC) ::::Why would there be problems? Besides that, I doubt he'll return unless you get into contact with him somehow - assuming he visits other wikia's. Like the King and his brother he must have lost interest. Including him in the L.o.S. is one thing, it's not like where gonna make him the freaking king or let him replace Dimitri or something. If anyone will replace Dimitri it will be Alexander. The Master's Voice 10:51, May 20, 2011 (UTC) Hi Dimi, user rights changes? Aesopos 04:45, January 2, 2012 (UTC) Well done! Way to go, Timey! Keep it up. The glorious First Consul of Rome 04:38, April 16, 2012 (UTC) Can i award the Royal Order of Valdemar to King Dimitri and other kings of Lovia?MMunson (talk) 15:26, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :Sure, if you wish . Other kings: logically, there's only one king at the time. All previous monarchs are six feet deep. [[User:DimiTalen|'Dimi'Talen]] 16:54, February 22, 2013 (UTC) ::No but when other kings were still alive can we just say that the Strask king and queens of the time awarded the orders?MMunson (talk) 17:08, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :::If you wish . [[User:DimiTalen|'Dimi'Talen]] 08:44, February 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::I did put it that the old kigns of Strasland awarded it to the old kings of Brunant.MMunson (talk) 18:15, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Blurb Perhaps something like this should be added on the page: : On September 1 he announced that he would be stepping down in favor of his daughter on 14 Septermber, making him the sixth monarch to abdicate in 2013, following Pope Benedict XVI, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emir Hamad bin Khalifa of Qatar and King Dimitri of Lovia. Most other people who abdicated this year have a similar mention on their wikipedia page. HORTON11: • 17:53, September 5, 2013 (UTC) Don't forget the King of Belgium :) Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 17:54, September 5, 2013 (UTC) : Yes, Frijoles333, the old boring and stupid Albert II is changed by his even more stupid son Filip. Wabba The I (talk) 17:55, September 5, 2013 (UTC) :: Yeah, forgot about him. At least Lovia and Brunant will have less stuffy characters on their thrones. HORTON11: • 18:12, September 5, 2013 (UTC) :: :::Dimitri was boring back in the day... *yawn* King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 18:23, September 5, 2013 (UTC)